A & M Records Vs Napster Case Summary

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHT
– TERM PAPER –
“HOW THE NEW CONSUMPTION OF
ENTERTAINMENT GOOD CALLS INTO QUESTION
THE MUSIC AND MOVIE PROPERTY AND
BUSINESS MODEL.”

1

INTRODUCTION
Internet, through dematerialization and global access, paved the way for the new ATAWAD consumption ( Any Time, Any Where, Any Device) and it has given a free way for consumer to override the copyrights system that was hitherto based on materialized good.
The A&M records vs Napster case in 2001 and more recently the Megaupload case in 2012 were only the most public front in wide ranging battle between the entertainment industries and the millions of individuals who were using the
Internet to download, without authorization, copyrighted works,
but who otherwise were putative customers of these industries.
After working for a Film Distribution Company in France for more than a year, is it in my mind, obvious that the consumption of entertainment goods (such as music and movies) have changed: the time where going to the movie theatre was an ordinary and inexpensive activity is gone, also is the time where one have to buy and entire CD’s of an artist to listen to his music. Nowadays, instead of going outside and spend 8 euros (European average) per person to see a movie, it far easier to stay home and watch a movie almost for free
(VoD, illegal download…).
However, if the music industry heads out and starts to transform its business model, the movie industry is still stuck in its old-fashioned business model. It is now the time for the entire entertainment industry to wake up to the fact that a new era had begun, and this economic system has to be reinvented if it doesn’t want to keep on losing money for the work it creates.
Nevertheless, such a turning point cannot be possible and viable without the legal framework.
This breakthrough for the legal field implies an international call-into-question cause now the national boundaries that rule the intellectual property rights are obsoletes with those New Medias. Furthermore, this new era is based more than ever on digital technologies, and because digital is fundamentally an information and communication technology, intellectual property rights lie at its heart. However, Digital technologies are based on copying, so copyright becomes their regulator: a role it was never designed to perform.
Because the entertainment economic system is the one that I choose to be involved in at least for the beginning of my career, and because the reshaping of this entire industry is imminent, this term paper deals with how the new consumption of entertainment good calls into question the music and movie property and business model.
2

To handle this issue it is first convenient to draw the actual picture of the legal system regarding Music and Movie exploitation. Then I will highlight which changes in the consumption habits flaw the legal framework. Finally after discussing the economic outcomes for every point of view involved and it is relevant to pinpoints what can be the possible improvements.

3

T ABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
PART 1 : LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGARDING MUSIC AND MOVIE EXPLOITATION .................................................... 5
I.

PROPERTY RIGHTS ...................................................................................................................................... 5

II.

MORAL RIGHTS .......................................................................................................................................... 6

III.

DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 7

IV.

NEW CONSUMPTION HABITS CALL INTO QUESTION THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK ........................................ 8

MEGAUPLOAD EXAMPLE ................................................................................................................................ 8
NAPSTER EXAMPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 9
V.

TIME AND TERRITORY LIMITATION OF IPR .............................................................................................. 10

PART 2: THE ECONOMIC REVERBARATIONS OF INFRINGEMENT ON MUSIC AND MOVIE COPYRIGHTS .............. 12
I.

LOSSES DUE TO INFRIGEMENT ON COPYRIGHTS ..................................................................................... 12
MUSIC INDUSTRY .......................................................................................................................................... 12
MOVIE INDUSTRY .......................................................................................................................................... 12

II.

DIFFERENTS POINT OF VIEW ON MUSIC PIRACY...................................................................................... 13

III.

FIRST SOLUTION: RECONSIDER THE SYSTEM WITH THE ENTIRE VALUE CHAIN IN ITS ALL ...................... 14
A NEW EQUATION OF COPYRIGHT : A GLOBAL IDENTITY OF IPR .................................................................. 14
THE UK REPPORT EXAMPLE: DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS EXCHANGE.................................................................... 15

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 17
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
I.

WEBSITES ................................................................................................................................................. 18

II.

BOOKS ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

III.

ARTICLES .................................................................................................................................................. 19

IV.

REPPORTS ................................................................................................................................................. 19

4

PART 1 : LEGAL FRAMEWORK REGARDING MUSIC
AND MOVIE EXPLOITATION
As creative artworks, Music and Movies are both protected by Copyrights:
A brief outlook on what copyrights protects and how, is necessary to understand what is at stake for the entertainment industry today:

-

The French law does not refer to “Copyrights” as a right to “copy” but refers to
“Droits d’auteur” based on the right of the author to reap the fruit of the artwork created. French copyright law is defined in the Code de la propriété intellectuelle, which implements European copyright law.
Two distinct sets of rights are discussed:
Property rights
Moral rights

I. PROPERTY RIGHTS
“Article L111-1
The author of a work of the mind shall enjoy in that work, by the mere fact of its creation, an exclusive incorporeal property right which shall be enforceable against all persons. This right shall include attributes of an intellectual and moral nature as well as attributes of an economic nature, as determined by Books I and III of this Code.
The existence or conclusion of a contract for hire or of service by the author of a work of the mind shall in no way derogate from the enjoyment of the right afforded by the first paragraph above.
Article L111-2
A work shall be deemed to have been created, irrespective of any public disclosure, by the mere fact of realization of the author’s concept, even if incomplete.
Article L112-1
The provisions of this Code shall protect the rights of authors in all works of the mind, whatever their kind, form of expression, merit or purpose.
This includes:
“Article L112-2
5°.musical compositions with or without words;
6°.cinematographic works and other works consisting of sequences of moving images, with or without sound, together referred to as audio-visual works;
And of course it states the following patrimonial rights:
5

Article L122-1
The right of exploitation belonging to the author shall comprise the right of performance and the right of reproduction.





However some localities are able to make some exception to this exclusive tight only if the exception fulfils the conditions of a “three-step test” : should only concern special cases; should not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work; should not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.
The duration of such rights is 70 years after the death of the author
Article L123-1
(Act No. 97-283 of 27 Mars 1997 art. 5 Official Journal of 28 Mars 1997 in force on 1
July 1995)
The author shall enjoy, during his lifetime, the exclusive right to exploit his work in any form whatsoever and to derive monetary profit therefrom.
On the death of the author, that right shall subsist for his successors in title during the current calendar year and the 70 years thereafter.

II. MORAL RIGHTS
As stated below, the French law regarding copyrights recognizes also moral rights. The following rights are enforced:
Article L121-1
An author shall enjoy the right to respect for his name, his authorship and his work.
This right shall attach to his person.
It shall be perpetual, inalienable and imprescriptible. It may be transmitted mortis causa to the heirs of the author.
Exercise may be conferred on another person under the provisions of a will.
The moral rights are the main difference between the system of copyrights and the system of droits d’auteur. French law grant the benefits to natural persons: the author and his heirs. Whereas the Us Copyright law enable natural persons and legal entities (editor, producer) to capitalize on an artwork. In
France, legal entities are only granted neighbouring rights.
Thus, Droit d’ auteur in France does not require a material fixation of the work as it is required of Copyright.
This might be a detail between these two systems, however in the perspective of my analysis it is noteworthy.
Indeed, the cultural roots of legal system trigger different repercussion concerning infringement. In the US copyright system, pirates infringe on the rights of big recording or producing companies, but in the French system pirates infringe on the rights of persons. In a moral point of view, it is radically
6

different. On one hand, it is benefiting from the flaws of a system and hampering companies, in the other hand it is violated a personal right.
Nowadays, this difference tends to disappear as some States in the USA adopt kind of moral rights concerning copyrights and French droit auteur focus more and more about the economic outcome.
This point will be deepened further in this term paper as it embodies the philosophical part of piracy and illegal copying.

III.

DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT

However, the age of digital media has radically changed intellectual property rights. The proliferation of technologies that enable mass-market digital copying combined with file sharing software and peer-to-peer networks, have led to exacerbate worries about distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted media. In particular, the movie and music industries continue to search for technical and regulatory solution to get rid of digital piracy.
These concerns led to another legal framework: Digital Rights Management.
The French law regarding Digital Rights Management was enforced on August
2006 under the name : Loi no 2006-961 du 1er août 2006 relative au droit d’auteur et aux droits voisins dans la société de l’information” called
“DADVSI”. ( in english : law on author’s rights and related rights in the information society)
The outcomes of this new law are the following
-

-

Sanctions for publishing, distributing or promoting software that is “manifestly intended” for unauthorised distributions of copyright works incur a penalty of up to 3 years in prison or a fine of €300,000.
Sanctions for illegal actions such as peer-to-peer or manipulation of DRM will be granted a fine between 38€ to 30 000 € or 10 months in prison
The law came out after a long and sinuous debate. Obviously, the main topics were software interoperability, open source software, peer-to-peer transfers, technical measures for the protection of digital content, private copy and sanctions of illegal downloading.
The central players were the media, the computer industry and the businesses in digital environment (Apple, Microsoft, Universal, Warner etc).
Let’s analyse the point of view of each side:

7

-

-

Entertainment companies: Industries and Artist were in favour of a reinforcement of their rights.
Society (ie, consumer) point of view : In December 2005, a public survey by the French IFOP institute revealed that two thirds of the population think that those who publish software allowing free downloading of music and videos from internet should be held responsible for the violation of author’s rights
Business in Digital environment: Apple for instance used its leverage to raise a controversy upon interoperability to crush down the first proposal and to make the definitive law not too restrictive in regards of free softwares. Indeed, the music and movie legal downloads were a significant issue for the ITunes software launched by Apple.
A variety of technical options for protecting digital contents have been implemented since the enforcement of this law. It includes: copy control, file access control (limiting the number or length of views) restrictions on altering, sharing, saving or printing copyrighted files, and electronic watermarking, flagging or tagging to signal to a device that the media is copyrighted.
Nevertheless Steve Jobs summarized, in a very relevant way, the inherent limits of legal and technological strategies: “PIRACY IS A BEHAVIOURAL ISSUE, NOT A
TECHNOLOGICAL ONE”. This sentence epitomizes a cornerstone of this term paper

IV.
NEW CONSUMPTION HABITS CALL
INTO QUESTION THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
From my point of view, Internet and the digital era transformed the way of consumption and especially for entertainment goods and neither the legal system nor the business models of entertainment industries seems to fit this new paradigm of consumption. The digital world poses new issues: how to manage the balance when the marginal cost of a copy is zero, when enforcement of existing law is extremely difficult, and when free access to information and content is considered by many to be a right.
Piracy, even if it infringes on morality, seems to characterize more efficiently the Current Music and Movie Consumer. I mean here the paradigm of
ATAWAD consumption: Any Time, Any Where, Any Device.

MEGAUPLOAD EXAMPLE
The Megaupload case is a good example of what I explained below. The sway of the site can be pictured with some figures:
Page Views (in history): over 1,000,000,000
8

Visitors per day: 50,000,000
Once the 13th most visited site on the Internet
The legal judgement came out with the following indictment. Megaupload and its executives:
"... are wilfully infringing copyrights themselves on these systems; have actual knowledge that the materials on their systems are infringing (or alternatively know facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent); receive a financial benefit directly attributable to copyright-infringing activity where the provider can control that activity; and have not removed, or disabled access to, known copyright infringing material from servers they control.

NAPSTER EXAMPLE
Another famous example is the Napster vs A&M records case. It was the first major case to address the application of copyright laws to peer-to-peer files sharing. Napster provided a platform for users to access and download compressed digital music files, specifically MP3s, from other users ' machines. Napster 's ease of use compared to other peer-to-peer services quickly made it a popular service for music enthusiasts to find and download digital song files for free.
First injunction enjoined Napster from “from engaging in, or facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs ' copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state law, without express permission of the rights owner.”
Even if Napster’s infringement on copyright has been proved, the use of peerto-peer file sharing doesn’t seem to be dwindling. The legal sanctions enforced are no disincentive for users. Indeed, property rights have been implemented to protect one person’s good to infringement by another one. But what If the one who made the infringement cannot really be identify and if it is not only one person but hundreds of thousand? The Entertainment industries are still trying to find culprits to blame for infringing on their rights so they focus on
“non personal” guilt as Napster or Megaupload. This doesn’t have reverberations on consumer behaviour.
While downloading one song may not feel that serious of a crime, the accumulative impact of millions of songs downloaded illegally – and without any compensation to all the people who helped to create that song and bring it to fans – is devastating for the entire industry.

9

Thus, even if the Megaupload case caused such a stir in the mediatic sphere, it did not reduce the spectrum of illegal-downloads-platform. This is the point: several critics of the record and producing industries have argued that they should embrace free music and movie rather than fight it. Thus, demand for music is supposed to increase if it is freely available. However, this new paradigm triggers out the problem of how the entertainment industry can capture value from a free good.

V. TIME AND TERRITORY LIMITATION OF IPR
Furthermore, the new digital area is not tightened by the national boundaries, but the legal system is. As artworks are essentially dematerialized, it cannot be narrowed to a specific territory; nevertheless the applications of copyrights are national ones. This character of legal system is also called into question.
Indeed, if some countries tried to find agreement in order to harmonize the different legal policies, as the European countries did with the Berne
Convention, Intellectual Property Rights are not for now and are unlikely to become global rights.
A relevant instance of national reluctances of countries to open and harmonize legal system for entertainment good, is the struggle upon Cultural good that took place during the late negotiation between the European Union and The
United State.
Last March, the European Commission proposed the launch of a transatlantic partnership for trade and investment between the European Union and the
United States. In complete contradiction with previous trade negotiations, the draft project proposed by the European Commission ignored the cultural exception, a concept which considers that cultural and audiovisual goods and services must not be treated like any other merchandise
The European Parliament, assembled in a plenary session in Strasbourg on
Thursday, May 23rd, 2013, clearly expressed its refusal to see cultural and audiovisual services used as trading tools in global trade negotiations with the
United States. the European Parliament “believes that it is essential for the Union and its member states to maintain the possibility of preserving and developing their cultural and audiovisual policies, and this, within the framework of their legislative, normative and conventional rights; and thus requires that the exclusion of services with cultural and audiovisual content, including online, be clearly stipulated in the negotiation’s mandate”
10

Furthermore, in France, the legal framework for the movie exploitation is not only geographically limited faced also time limitations. Indeed, the French movie system is complex and the entertainment industry lobbies not to change it. This framework enable the legal exploitation of a movie on Internet platforms (Vod or svod) only from 4 to 10 months after the official release of the film in theatre and then after 36 months ( 3 years) after the release. In others words, in France a movie cannot be seen on the Internet before 4 months after the release and between 10 months and 36 months after the release, which freezes 95% of the possible income of legal digital exploitation.

In a nutshell, the legal framework faces limitation in time in the meantime; consumers are now able to have access to every kind of music and movie Any time, Any Where and with Any Device.
Furthermore if the legal institutions are not able anymore to identify those who infringe on the law, the consumer seems not to be aware anymore of infringing on somebody else’s right when listening or watching an illegally downloaded good. The digital area is getting rid of geographical and time limitation but also identification of criminals.

11

PART 2: THE ECONOMIC REVERBARATIONS OF
INFRINGEMENT ON MUSIC AND MOVIE
COPYRIGHTS
I. LOSSES DUE TO INFRIGEMENT ON
COPYRIGHTS
MUSIC INDUSTRY
Calculating losses from piracy is obviously a thorny issue. Some estimation from official institutes and organization enable us to draw the following picture of the situation:
Commercial music piracy and private copying of music are responsible for much of the copyright infringement. The International Federation of the
Phonographic Industry estimated the number of files shared at more than 40 billion in 2008, a piracy rate of about 95 per cent. Frontier Economics has estimated the commercial value of all recorded music digital piracy at between
17 and 40 billion USD in 2008, representing a commercial loss to the industry of between 3,5 and 8 billion USD annually.
Another more global report (by the Institute for Policy Innovation) pinpoints the following figures: global music piracy causes $12.5 billion of economic losses every year, 71,060 U.S. jobs lost, a loss of $2.7 billion in workers ' earnings, and a loss of $422 million in tax revenues, $291 million in personal income tax and $131 million in lost corporate income and production taxes.
MOVIE INDUSTRY
Approximately the same picture can be drawn for the movie industry:
In July 2010, the United States government shut down nine websites offering free access to films, some of the sites had nearly 7 million subscribers each month ( obviously Megaupload again, exemplifies perfectly the trend). They are able to reap benefits from advertising revenues and donations. In France the losses due to piracy are estimated an amount of 1,7 billion Euros in 2008, and are held responsible for one third of the decrease in the video exploitation income. 12

II. DIFFERENTS POINT OF VIEW ON MUSIC
PIRACY
However these frightening figures are in a way overestimated. In fact, it cannot be assumed that a person who did not pay anything for pirated product would be the type of customer who would purchase the same product if they have to pay for it.
“IT

SEEMS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE MUSIC THAT IS CONSUMED ILLEGALLY BY THE

INDIVIDUALS IN OUR SAMPLE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IF ILLEGAL DOWNLOADING
WEBSITES WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THEM”,

according researchers at The Institute for

Prospective Technological Studies.
According to a study from the National Assembly at Columbia University, people who frequently download music without paying for it end up buying
30% more music than everybody else. It is not surprising that heavy-duty downloaders are huge music fans, thus even if they download numerous files, they pour money in the musical industry by buying the album they want to support. The same point of view can be found in movies piracy as well. For instance,
David Kaplan, Chief of Anti-Piracy Operations at Warner Bros., has come out in defence of piracy. He’s not outright endorsing piracy, but he admits that piracy is a “proxy of consumer demand.” He uses this information “to adjust or develop business models to take advantage of that demand by offering fans what they are looking for when they are looking for it.”
This outcome is part of the shift in consumption behaviour of entertainment goods. Since the launch of ITunes Music and movies store in 2003, the availability to purchase legal digital songs changed individuals’
music consumption alternatives. The choice is not anymore between illegal downloads that can be purchase any time for noting and entire CD that cost in average 8 € in France. The alternative is now download legal digital song for in average 0, 99 € per song (ITunes prices). In this regards, piracy helps filter the choice and invest money in the products you really want.
Nevertheless, it is hard to picture overall music sales numbers climbing back up to their pre-digital heights anytime soon. Listeners are being conditioned to expect to find and listen to music instantaneously, with or without shelling out money for it. That trend started with Napster and continues today with more legitimate services. Today 's teenagers instinctively search for new releases on
Spotify. If they 're not there, they check YouTube or SoundCloud. Some might pay for a download from iTunes or Amazon, but with so many free and adsupported options, why bother forking over actual dollars?
13

Different studies both from very sterling institutions come up with two different conclusions on the effects of piracy on music sales.
Actually, this pinpoints the various point of views that a legal framework have to deal with. Music and movies piracy jeopardizes the entertainment industry in its old business model; in this regard the sanctions on copyrights infringement should be tightened for this industry to reap the fruit of its work.
On the other hand, in a society point of view, downloading music and movies any time, for a very small amount of money is a breakthrough for the creative and the cultural field. It is today easier than ever to make its own music and have it seen by thousands of people all around the world and get money for it , which used to be only the field of recording companies
All in all the question that remains is: how do we bridge the technological gap of making more music easily discoverable while still encouraging legal purchases? This is exactly what the legal system is supposed to handle.

III.
FIRST SOLUTION: RECONSIDER THE
SYSTEM WITH THE ENTIRE VALUE CHAIN
IN ITS ALL
A NEW EQUATION OF COPYRIGHT : A GLOBAL IDENTITY OF IPR
The copyright system is based on the following equation, according to William
Landes:
COSTS OF
EXPRESSION

ICOMES

C
O

I
N
C
O
M
A new
E

COSTS OF
PUBLICATION

In this regards, each creative work is independent. paradigm supposed that the entire industry at to be seen in all its. Incomes can be reaped not only from the artwork itself but also from the supplier who give access to it.
(Storage devices, personal computers, Internet access). The legal system should combine protecting artwork and the way to get access to it, i.e. combining digital rights and copyrights.
Thus the new equation would be
COSTS OF
EXPRESSION OF
THE INDUSTRY

C
O
S
T
S

EVERY COSTS OF
PRODUCTION

C
O
S
T
S

O
F

O
F

E

P

INCOMES
FROM EVERY
FIELDS

C
O
S
T
S
O
F
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N

I
N
C
O
M
E

14
F
R
O

The outcome for the consumer is satisfying. Indeed, it would be possible to benefit for any improvement in the digital technologies for having access to entertainment goods. The price will be global so there won’t be money to spend for every song or every movie downloaded, and so legal download can be preferred to piracy, especially if sanctions are sufficiently dissuasive.
When you look upon entertainment industries with an Us legal system point of view, copyrights are granted to companies and not necessarily to authors.
Companies, both entertainment industries and businesses in digital environment can thus share the cost of expression, production and access and the incomes would be more efficiently distributed and not only dependant of “blockbusters”. The legal system with Intellectual property rights and digital management rights will assure the protection of artworks globally.
However, this system can favour Big Companies and cripples independent and small entertainment companies.
Moreover with a European outlook (copyright granted to the author in person and not to a company) dismissing copyrights would be alleviating the protection of artwork independently and author’s rights. Indeed, the role of the author is central for the European, because an artwork does not only have an economic value but also a human and cultural value that is undeniably linked to the ideas and the creation of one person. By focusing on global rights, there will be fewer incentives for creating audiovisual works outside the recording and producing companies.
At the end of the day, what the legal system has to focus on is that the interests of the creative industries are of great importance, for the economic as well as for the cultural and human add-value, and they need in order to flourish: open, efficient and effective digital market where rights can be speedily licensed and effectively protected.
THE UK REPPORT EXAMPLE: DIGITAL COPYRIGHTS EXCHANGE
The attitude of UK Prime Minister David Cameron towards this shift in the economic world of entertainment exemplifies the need to call into question the legal framework of IPR and especially copyrights.
Indeed, in 2010 David Cameron mandated Professor Ian Hargreaves to lead a report on “ Digital opportunity : A review on Intellectual property and growth”
.The question that is at stake is :” Could it be true that laws designed more than three centuries ago with the express purpose of creating economic incentives for innovation by protecting creators’ rights are today obstructing innovation and economic growth? “

15

The review outcome is non-surprising: Yes. According to Ian Hargreaves, the legal framework on Intellectual Property Right and especially with regard to copyright is falling behind what is needed. the Review proposes that Government brings together rights holders and other business interests to create in the UK the world’s first Digital Copyright
Exchange.
This will make it easier for rights owners, small and large, to sell licences in their work and for others to buy them. It will make market transactions faster, more automated and cheaper. The result will be a UK market in digital copyright which is better informed and more readily capable of resolving disputes without costly litigation.
The prize is to build on the UK’s current competitive advantage in creative content to become a leader in providing the services global players use to license their content for world content markets.
If such a breakthrough can be implemented in the UK, it can also be in the entire Europe or in the World. Actually, a worldwide digital copyright exchange would be the more efficiently legal framework for entertainment good, but such an harmonization is not likely to be implemented any time soon.
The question is: in a digital world, where copying and distribution are more or less free, what does an effective regime look like?
Government should be able to respond in four ways: by modernising copyright law; through education; through enforcement and by doing all it can to encourage open and competitive markets in licensed digital content, which will result in more legitimate digital content at prices which appeal to consumers.
This is obviously not only in the domain of the law, but also business and innovations incentives that depends of the market and government conditions.
The legal framework should be a safe playground were different interests can encounter but for now is seems that the playground is no longer appropriate.
Only a global negotiation can be a way to go away from this stalemate.

16

CONCLUSION

As William M Landes highlights in the book T HE E CONOMIC S TRUCTURE OF
I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY : Today it is acknowledge that law is aligned with the dictates of economic efficiency. However, when the law as to deal with intellectual property, it is not only the economic value that is at stake but also the cultural and creative and technologic value.
What does it triggers: Clash of interest, but not only between two opposite parts, between divers stakeholders: The society, entertainment companies, authors, business in the digital field.
The legal system is supposed to ground the proper environment for finding the most effective trade-off. Nevertheless, the businesses have to reshape their business model in order to fit with the consumption habits. It is not an easy word to say for someone who used to work for an entertainment companies. But it is now time, to think what tomorrow will be like. in the 80’s in France, the creation of national TV Channel caused huge concerns for the movie industry. Indeed, having access to movie at home can be an impediment for ticket sales in Theatre. The movie industry handled this new situation by making mandatory for the TV channel to invest a certain percentage of their benefits in the film production system. Today, the new breakthrough of digital technology seems to wreak havoc in the entertainment field as the TV did. The real difference is that there were two different interest in the 80’s, and it was easy to invent a legal framework where only two parts have to find a compromise. Today, many parts are involved, most of them (every single music and movie pirates) cannot even be identified or in a constant evolution (digital technology).
This is the new challenge the Legal framework and the entertainment industry that relies on it has to face,but as Albert Einstein said “ WE CANNOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS WITH
THE SAME THINKING WE USED TO CREATED THEM”. It should be time to think out of the box, and I hope the next steps in my professional career will go in this direction.

17

REFERENCES
I. WEBSITES http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_Records,_Inc._v._Napster,_Inc. (18/09/2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload_legal_case (18/09/2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement (18/09/2013) http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/info_centre/a_z/index_en.htm (18/09/2013) http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/index_en.htm (20/09/2013) http://ec.europa.eu/avpolicy/other_actions/content_online/index_en.htm (20/09/2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI (24/09/2013) http://news.cnet.com/Apple-gets-reprieve-from-French-DRM-busting-law/21001027_3-6100629.html (24/09/2013) http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/culture-negotiation (24/09/2013) http://cineuropa.org/nw.aspx?t=newsdetail&l=en&did=239003 (24/09/2013) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51757-2005Feb24.html (24/09/2013) http://www.riaa.com/faq.php (24/09/2013) http://www.webpronews.com/warner-bros-says-piracy-can-be-a-good-thingsometimes-2013-06(24/09/2013) http://readwrite.com/2012/06/27/a-decade-after-napster-the-music-piracydebate-rages-on#awesm=~oj7zbOJJbPX1C8 (25/09/2013) http://readwrite.com/2012/10/19/should-the-music-industry-be-thanking-illegaldownloaders#awesm=~oiVSBvUAWCDcR3 (25/09/2013)

18

II. BOOKS
T HE NEW F RENCH LAW ON AUTHOR ’ S RIGHTS AND RELATED RIGHTS IN THE
INFORMATION SOCIETY by Joachim Schöpfel
T HE N EW L OGIC OF M ONEY AND P OWER IN H OLLYWOOD by Edward Jay Epstein
T HE F UTURE OF M USIC : M ANIFESTO FOR A DIGITAL MUSIC REVOLUTION by David
Kusek and Gerd Leonhard

III.
“T H I S
FR OM

ARTICLES

: S H OU L D T H E C OM P U T E R I ND U S T R Y P R OT EC T H O L L Y W O OD
D I G I T A L T H EF T ?” Fortune ( 2002, 27 May)
I S WA R

IV.

REPPORTS

D IGITAL O PPORTUNITY : A REVIEW ON I NTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY AND G ROWTH by
Ian Hargreaves
D IGITAL MUSIC CONSUMPTION ON THE I NTERNET : E VIDENCE FORM C LICKSTREAM
D ATA , by the EC Joint Research Center

19